Holding

The Collector must provide the Court with full particulars of the entire land acquired in the reference under Section 19; the reference is not confined to the Khasra numbers specified in the claimant’s Section 18 application.

Summary

The appellants' agricultural land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and they were awarded compensation they considered inadequate. They filed an application under Section 18 seeking a reference to the Court for enhanced compensation, attaching a schedule of some Khasra numbers but stating a claim for the whole land. The Collector, in the reference under Section 19, listed only the Khasra numbers mentioned in the schedule, omitting the rest of the land. The Additional District Judge directed the Collector to submit a corrected statement covering the entire acquired land, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the Collector’s reference was limited to the particulars specified by the claimants. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that once a reference is made under Section 18, the Collector must furnish full details of the entire land acquired under Section 19, and the High Court’s restriction was erroneous. Consequently, the High Court order was set aside and the Additional District Judge’s order upheld, with costs awarded.

Issues considered

The scope of the Collector’s duty under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act when a reference is made under Section 18 – whether it is limited to the particulars specified in the claimant’s application or must include the entire land acquired.
Whether claimants must enumerate every Khasra number in their Section 18 application to claim enhanced compensation for the whole land.
Whether the High Court erred in limiting the reference to the Khasra numbers listed in the schedule annexed to the Section 18 application.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. 151-153, s. Order X, s. Order XIV rule 3
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 19

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation enhancementSection 18Section 19Reference to CourtKhasra numberCollector's dutyCivil Procedure

Judgment

RAM KUMAR AND ORS. A
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 21, 1991

[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 18 and 19. Land Acquisi-
____L_ tion-Compensation-Claimants application for reference under
section 18 for claim of enhanc!!.d compensation in respect of the whole
land acquired-But Land Schedule annexed with application indicating
Khasra No. in respect of part of the lands-Collector making a state- c
~ ment under section 19 to the Reference Court restricted to lands
- specified by Khasra No. and not in respect of the whole land acquired-
Held State acquiring land cannot take advantage of party's ignorance
and consequent non-specification of Khasra No.-It is the duty of
'~ , Collector to send full information to the Reference Court regarding the
D
· entire land acquired.

The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired and they
w.ere awarded compensation for their lands. Being dissatisfied with the.
compensation ·they made an application for a reference to the Court
under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector made
E
a reference to the Additional District Judge and in its statement under
-,..>-- Section 19 the Collector included onli those lands which were
included by the appellants in their application for reference under
section 18. The appellants filed an application before the Additional

- District Judge under section 151-153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
a direction to the Collector to file a revised statement giving the details F
of the whole of their lands acquired for the purposes of claim of
enhanced compensation. The Additional District Judge directed the
Collector to furnish a correct statement under section 19. Against the
..(· -:o:. order of the Additional District Judge the Union of India filed a revision
petition before the High Court, which allowed the petition by holding
that the power of the Collector to make a reference was restricted to
what was stated by the appellants in their application for reference and Gt
only those Khasra Nos. whi~h were specifically mentioned in the
Schedule annexed with the application under section 18 could be con-
sidered for the purposes of enhancement of the claim of compensation
-~and not the entire land acquired. Hence this appeal against the order of
the High Court.
H

649
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) 1 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High -Court~
this Court,

HELD: 1. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the
only requirement for the person interested who has not accepted the
B award is to move a written application to the Collector requiring that
the matter be referred for the determination of the Court. One of the ..J,...__
grounds for not accepting the award is the amount of compensation;
Once such application is moved it is the duty of the Collector to make a
reference to the Court. Under section 19 of the Act while making the
reference the Collector is required to state for the information of the
c Court the particulars as mentioned in clause (a) to (d) ofsub•section (1) . --
of Section 19 of the Act. Thus it is the duty of the Collector to mention
not only the situation and extent of land but even particulars of any ,,,
trees, buildings or standing crops thereon. The agriculturist whose land~~~
is acquired may not be fully conversant with the Khasra No. or area as (
entered in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the State
D acquiring such land cannot be allowed to take any advantage of such
ignorance of the agriculturists. Once an application is moved for mak-
ing a reference under section 18 of the Act it becomes the duty of the
Collector to send full information to the Court regarding the entire land
acquired and it is thereafter the duty of the. Court to decide the matter
inaccordancewithlaw. [657B-E] 1
---...__-

2. From a perusal of the application filed under Section 18 of the
Act along with the Schedule annexed therewith it is clear that the appel-
lants were claiming an enhancement in the compensation in respect of
-
the entire land acquired and there was no question of asking for a
F reference for a limited portion of land. The appellants were not re- ·
quired to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a prayer for enhancement~
of compensation while moving an application to .the Collector for
making a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act. The High
Court unnecessarily went into the question of some statement made by
the learned counsel for the appellants before the Additional District
G Judge and in examining its validity under Order X of the Code of Civil
Procedure and thus committed an error in deciding the matter with a
wrong approach and in a technical manner. [655E, F-G, 657F] ._,,--.

Smt. Jamilabai v. Shankarlal Gulabchand, A.I.R. 1975 S.C.
H 2202; cited.
RAM KUMAR v. U.O.I. [KASLIWAL, J.] 651

-~- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 195 .t\
of 1978 ..

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.1976 of-the Delhi High
Court in C.R. No. 354of1975.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale, K.B. Rohatagi, S.K. Dhingra and Shashank B
Shekhar for the Appellants.
:;.----~'-
V.C. Mahajan, R.B. Mishra, C.V.S. Rao and S.N. Terdal for
the Respondents.

...:.: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
I KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
~· the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 10.8.1976 in Civil Revision
No. 354 of 1975. Agricultural land measuring 78 bighas and 14 biswas
belonging to the appellants situated in village Garhi Peeran was D
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on
10.10.1967 allowing compensation for land in block 'A'@ Rs.2300 per
bigha and in block 'B'@ Rs.1200 per bigha. The claimants/appellants
submitted an application under Sec. 18 of the Act for making a refer-
-·~
ence to the Court. The Collector made a reference ta the Court in E
pursuance to the said application submitted by the appellants. The
Additional District Judge by Judgment dated 15.1.1971 increased the
amount of compensation to Rs.4,000 per bigha for land in block 'A'
and Rs.2,500 per bigha for land in block 'B'. The .appellants filed an
application on 16.1.1971 under Sections 151-153 C.P.C. before the
Addftional District Judge praying that the land in Khasra Nos. 408, F
c;:
411, 763, 764, 891, 893, 410, 432, 433, 504, 506, 761, 900, 901 & 904
had not been shown by the Land Acquisition Collector in the state-
ment under Section 19 of the Act although he had sent the names of all
the B.hoomidars of the aforesaid land. The mistake was on the part of
the Land Acquisition Collector and the appellants should not suffer on
account of the mistake or oversight of the Collector. It was thus prayed G
that in the interest of justice the Collector may be directed to file a

- '-"'(
revised statement under Sec. 19 of the Act giving the details of the
whole of the land belonging to the claimants which had been left out
on account of accidental slip or omission. The application was opposed
on behalf of the Union of India. The Additional District Judge after
hearing the parties at length, by order dated 18.2.1975 allowed the H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

A application and directed the Land Acquisition Collector concerned to
furnish the correct statement under Sec. 19 of the Act regarding the
land acquired of the appellants.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Additional District
B Judge, Union of India filed a revision before the High Court. The High
Court by judgment dated 10.8.1976 allowed the revision and set aside
the order of the Additional District Judge dated 18.2.1975. Tlie appel-
lants have now, come in appeal against the order of the High Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
c the record. There is no manner of dispute that the land acquired was
78 bighas and 14 biswas and the appellants were entitled to the com-
pensation of the entire land. The Land Acg_uisition Collector gave an
-
~

award and the appellants being not satisfied with the amount of com-
pensation submitted an application for making a reference to the
Court under Sec. 18 of the Act. A perusal of the application submitted
D by the appellants under Sec. 18 of the Act shows that in para (l) it was
stated as under:

"That the claimants' land details of which are given in the
schedule has been acquired under th~ aforesaid Award.
The Collector has awarded a very low rate of compensation
E to which claimants are not satisfied as their claims have not
been adequately considered by the Collector."

Thereafter ground~ of reference were stated and ground (9) which is
reievant for our purpose is reproduced as under:
F
"9. That the claimant petitioners claim compensation for
the whole of their land at the rate of Rs.20,000 per bigha,
Rs.10,000 for the well and Rs.200 each for each tree. They
further claim Rs.60,000 each for their resettlement as their
entire land in the village has been taken away under the
acquisition and they have been uprooted. They also claim
15% solatium and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
the enhanced amount of compensation plus the solatium - Y--
with effect from 4.3.1963."

A schedule of land belonging to claimant-petitioners was also a~nexed
•H with the application which is as under:
RAM KUMAR v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J.] 653

SCHEDULE OF LAND BELONGING TO CLAIMANT
A.
PETITIONERS ACQUIRED UNDER AWARD NO. 2024
Kh. Nos. Area
898 4-16
899 0-11 B
417 1-03
431 2-09
407 0-05

- 405
507
514
1-11
5~06

4-16
c

515 4-16
520 2-04
D
406 2-17
416 3-08
etc. etc

The High Court took the view that only those Khasra Nos. which E
were specifically mentioned in the schedule could alone be consi-

- dered for the purpose of enhancement of the claim of compensation
and not the entire land acquired. The area of the above Khasra Nos.
amounted to 34 bighas 2 biswas only though the total area of acquired
land amounted to 78 bighas and 14 biswas. The High Court in this
regard took the view that the reference was made by the Collector by F
sending a statement to the Court of the Additional District Judge
under Sec. 19 of the Act. In this statement only those fields were
included which had been listed in the schedule attached to the applica-
tion under Sec. 18. The High Court further held that the power of the
Collector to make the reference was restricted to what was stated in
the claimants' application for reference under Sec. 18 and does not G
extend beyond it. If the claimant, does not include some fields in his
reference application, the Collector cannot include it in the sta~ement
under Sec. 19. The High Court further held as under:

"In the original reference petition under section 18 by the
claimants the adjective "whole" was used in relation to the H·
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

land of the Claimants and the words "etc. etc." were also
A used in the schedule. At the same time, certain fields of the
claimants which were the subject-matter of the Collector's
award were not included in the reference petition. There
was certainly an ambiguity as to the intention of the claim-
ants as expressed by the reference petition. The counsel for
B the Union of India was, therefore, justified in requesting
the Additional District Judge to call upon ·the claimants
either to admit the statement sent by the Collector under
Section 19 or to file an amended reference petition stating
. their shares individually. The Additional District Judge

c
was also justified in asking the counsel for the claimants to
examine the preliminary objections and to make a state-
ment. The power of the Court to call upon the counsel for
...
the claimants to make a statement was derived from Order
X, Civil Procedure Code. Under Rule 2 of Order X, the
· Court had power to examine a party or his pleader and to
record his answer in relation to any material question relat-
D ing to the reference before it. Under Order XIV rule 3, the
materials on which issues had to be framed by the Court
included such statements made by the pleaders of the
parties under Order X. Accordingly, we find that the
learned Additional District Judge used the statement made
by the counsel for the claimants as the basis for dismissing
E the preliminary objections advanced by the Union of India.
The Counsel for the claimants· had authority to make the
statement which he did. The Supreme Court has recently
pointed out in Smt. Jamilabai v. Shankarlal Gulabchand,
AIR 1975 S.C. 2202, that the implied authority of the
counsel extends not only to make such a statement but even
F to compromise a suit or to admit a claim. Had the counsel
for the claimants not made the statement there that the
Collector's statement under Section 19 is correct, the Addi-
tional District Judge would have been found to call upon
the claimants to clarify the schedule to the reference peti-
tion so that the Court could know precisely the fields in
G respect of which enhancement of compensation was
claimed. It is because the claimants' counsel asked the
Court to take the Collector's statement under Section 19 as
correct that the Court decided to investigate only the
correctness of the compensation regarding those fields."

H The High Court ultimately took the view that the only conclusion
RAM KDMAR v. U.0.I., [KASLIWAL, J,) 655

-~ possible was that the enhancement was restricted to .the iand in dispute
and the land in dispute could only be such land in respect of which A
reference was demanded by the claimants.

In our view the High Court was totally wrong and unnecessarily
complicated the matter which seems to us, quite simple. It is an admit-
ted position that 78 bighas and 14 bigwas of land belonging to the B
appellants was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector had given
an award @ Rs.2,300 per bigha for block 'A' and Rs.1,200 per bigha
for block 'B'. The appellants were not satisfied with the above rate of
compensation and they had moved an application for making a refer-
ence under Sec. 18 of the Act. In the application it was clearly
mentioned that the Collector had awarded a very low rate of compen-
sation to which the claimants were not satisfied. In ground No. 9 the c
claimants/petitioners had mentioned that they were claiming compen-
sation for the whole of their land @Rs.20,000 per bigha. That apart in
the schedule also some khasra Nos. were mentioned specifically but in
the end the words used were 'etc. etc.'. The Additional District Judge
liad passed the order on lS.L 1971 and immediately on the next day I.e. D
. 16.1.1971 the appellants had submitted the application under Secs.
151-153 C. P. C. for correcting the mistake. The Additional District
Judge who was seized of the matter allowed the said application by his
order dated 18.2.1975. Thus from a perusal of the application filed
under Sec. 18 of the Act alongwith the schedule we are fully satisfied
that the appellants were claiming an enhancement in the compensation · E
in respect of the entire land acquired and there was no question of

--
,
asking for a reference for a limited portion of land measuring 34 bighas
and 2 bigwas only. The High Court unnecessarily went into the ques-
tion of some statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants
before the Additional District Judge and in examining its validity
under Order X of the C.P.C. It was a simple matter to be decided on F
the basis of factual statements made in the application and we are fully
convinced that the appellants had sought a reference for the entire
land acquired and there was no reason whatsoever in leaving out some
portion of the land when the grievance of the appellants was for
enhancing the compensation which was awarded at a low rate. The
appellants were not required to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a G
prayer for enhancement of compensation while moving an application
to the Collector for making a reference to the Court under Sec. 18 of
the Act. Learned counsel for the Union of India was unable to give any
plausible explanation which might have persuaded the appellants to
have left a large portion of the land in the application filed under
Sec. 18 of the Act from claiming enhancement in the amount of H
compensation.
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

In order to appreciate the controversy we would like to refer ~
A Secs. 18 & 19 of the Act which are reproduced as under:

Sec. 18. Reference to Court:

(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may
B by written application to the Collector, require that the matter
be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, -~
whether his objection to the measurement of the land, the
amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable
or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested. -~

c (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to
the award is taken: ·

Provided that every such application shall be made,-

D (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the
Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks
from the date of the Collector's award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice
-~ ~
from the Collector under Sec. 12, sub-section (2), or within six
E months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period
shall first expire.

Sec. 19 Collector's statement to the Court- --
'

(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the
F information of the Court, in writing under his hand,-
~
(a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any
trees, buildings or standing crops thereon;

(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think in-
G terested in such land,
/·--
(c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under )"'

section 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensa-
ti on awarded under section 11; and

a ( d) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation,
RAM KUMAR v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL,.J.] 657

grounds on which the amount of compensation was detemiined. A

(2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the
particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in
writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively."
B
Under Sec. 18 of the Act the only requirement for the person
interested who had not accepted the award was to move a written
application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for
the determination of the Court. One of the grounds for the accepting
the award was the amount of compensation. Once 'such application
was moved it was the duty of the Collector to make a reference to the
Court. Under Sec. 19 of the Act while making the reference the c
Collector was required to state for the information of the Court the
particulars as mentioned in clauses (a} t0 (d) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 19
of the Act. Thus it was the duty of the Collector to mention not only
the situation and extent of land but even particulars of any trees,
buildings or standing crops thereon. The agriculturist whose land is
0
acquired may not be fully conversant with the khasra No. or area as
entered in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the State
acquiring such land should not be allowed to take any advantage of
such ignorance of the agriculturists. Once an application is moved for
making a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act it becomes the duty of the
Collector to send full information to the Court regarding the entire
land acquired and it is thereafter the duty of the Court to decide the
matter in accordance with law.

Thus looking into the matter from any angle, we are fully
satisfied that the Additional District Judge was justified in allowing the
application filed by the appellants and the High Court committed an
F
~, error in deciding the matter with a wrong approach and in a technical
n °',; manner. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the
High Court dated 10.8.1976 and uphold the order of the Additional
District Judge dated 15.1.1971, with costs.

Appeal allowed.